Citation Nr: 0431153
Decision Date: 11/24/04 Archive Date: 11/29/04
DOCKET NO. 03-16 456 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul,
Minnesota
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for internal
derangement of the right knee, currently evaluated at 20
percent.
2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative
changes of the right knee, currently evaluated at 10 percent.
3. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for recurrent
subluxation or instability of the left knee, currently
evaluated at 20 percent.
4. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative
changes of the left knee, currently evaluated at 10 percent.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Minnesota Department of
Veterans Affairs
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Veteran and spouse
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Patricia Olson, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from June 1978 to
September 1985.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board or BVA) on appeal from a March 2002 rating decision of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in St. Paul, Minnesota.
In March 2004, the veteran testified at a videoconference
hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A
transcript of that hearing is of record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A right knee disability is not manifested by severe
subluxation or instability or other manifestations of severe
impairment.
2. Arthritis of the right knee results in limitation of
motion to 20 degrees of extension and 80 degrees of flexion.
3. A left knee disability is not manifested by severe
subluxation or instability or other manifestations of severe
impairment.
4. Arthritis of the left knee results in limitation of
motion to 20 degrees of extension and 115 degrees of flexion.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The criteria for a rating higher than 20 percent for
internal derangement of the right knee are not met. 38
U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 7104 (West 2002); 38
C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257
(2003).
2. The criteria for an increased evaluation of 30 percent
for degenerative changes of the right knee with limitation of
motion are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 7104
(West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59,
4.71a; Diagnostic Codes 5010, 5003, 5261 (2003).
3. The criteria for a rating higher than 20 percent for
recurrent subluxation or instability of the left knee are not
met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 7104 (West
2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code
5257 (2003).
4. The criteria for an increased rating of 30 percent for
degenerative changes of the left knee with limitation of
motion are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 7104
(West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59,
4.71a; Diagnostic Codes 5010, 5003, 5261 (2003).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claims. On November 9, 2000, the
President signed into law the Veterans Claims Assistance Act
of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000).
This law redefines the obligations of VA with respect to the
duty to assist and includes an enhanced duty to notify a
claimant as to the information and evidence necessary to
substantiate a claim of VA benefits.
VA has a duty to notify the veteran and his representative,
if any, of any information and evidence needed to
substantiate and complete a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102,
5103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). VA also has a duty to assist the
veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the
claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).
The United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims'
(Court's) decision in Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112
(2004) held, in part, that a VCAA notice, consistent with 38
U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), must: (1) inform
the claimant about the information and evidence not of record
that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) inform the
claimant about the information and evidence that VA will seek
to provide; (3) inform the claimant about the information and
evidence the claimant is expected to provide; and (4) also
request that the claimant provide any evidence in the
claimant's possession that pertains to the claim. The Court
further noted in Pelegrini that a VCAA notice as required by
38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), must be provided to a claimant before
the initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)
decision on a claim of VA benefits.
In November 2001, the RO sent a letter to the veteran
advising him to send medical evidence where he had been
treated for his service-connected disabilities in order to
substantiate his claim. In accordance with the requirements
of the VCAA, the letter informed the veteran what evidence
and information VA would be obtaining and what evidence the
veteran still needed to provide. The letter explained that
VA would obtain VA medical center or clinic reports and
private doctor, hospital or clinic reports with proper
authorization. While the November 2001 notice letter did not
specifically advise the veteran to provide any evidence in
his possession that pertains to his claim, he was informed
that VA would request the medical evidence he identified but
that calling or writing to the doctor or hospital himself was
the fastest way to get the information to VA. The Board
finds that the veteran was sufficiently put on notice as to
the need for any available evidence to be received by VA and
associated with the claims file, whether the evidence was in
his possession, obtained by him, or obtained by VA. In
addition the Board notes that the November 2001 notice
letter, which preceded the March 2002 rating decision,
satisfies the timing element of the Pelegrini decision for
the veteran's claim on appeal. Therefore, not withstanding
Pelegrini, to decide the appeal would not be prejudicial to
the veteran.
With respect to VA's duty to assist the veteran, the RO
obtained the veteran's service medical records, VA outpatient
treatment records as well as private treatment records
identified by the veteran. Further, the veteran was afforded
VA examinations in February 2002 and June 2003 in connection
with his increased rating claims. The veteran has not
referenced any unobtained evidence that might aid his claim
or that might be pertinent to the bases of the denial of his
claim. As such, the Board finds that VA has done everything
reasonably possible to assist the veteran. In the
circumstances of this case, additional efforts to assist him
in accordance with the VCAA would serve no useful purpose.
The veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating
for his right and left knee disabilities because the
disabilities have increased in severity and have reached the
point where knee replacement surgery has been discussed. At
the March 2004 videoconference hearing, the veteran's
representative argued that since the veteran was a candidate
for knee replacement surgery, this is evidence of severe
disability, and, therefore, should be accorded the higher
evaluations.
In April 1981, the veteran underwent arthroscopy and
arthrotomy of the right knee with excision of loose body and
curetting of osteochondritic defect of the medial femoral
condyle. In November 1990, the veteran underwent right knee
abrasion arthroplasty of the medial femoral and condyles,
articular cartilage debridement of trochlea, excision of
large infrapatellar bone spur, and partial synovectomy.
The veteran testified in March 2004 that he is a bus driver.
The veteran stated that when he wakes up in the morning or if
he sits for long periods of time, his knees stiffen up,
making it hard to move. The veteran reported that his knees
have locked up while walking and running but that he had
never fallen while walking, except while walking down stairs.
The veteran testified that he takes Naproxen and Tylenol for
arthritis and that he has not taken off work for his knees in
quite a while.
Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria
set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is
based on the average impairment of earning capacity.
Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic
codes. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where an
increase in an existing disability rating based on
established entitlement to compensation is at issue, the
present level of disability is the primary concern.
Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). If two
evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation
will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly
approximates the criteria required for that rating;
otherwise, the lower evaluation will be assigned. 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.7.
The Board notes that in a claim for an increased rating,
"the claimant will generally be presumed to be seeking the
maximum available benefit allowed by law and regulation, and
it follows that such a claim remains in controversy where
less than the maximum available benefit is awarded." AB v.
Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993).
The record shows that in July 1992 the RO granted the veteran
service connection for internal derangement of the right knee
and assigned a 20 percent rating effective December 16, 1991.
In January 1997 the RO granted the veteran service connection
for degenerative arthritis of the left knee and assigned a 10
percent rating effective November 20, 1996.
In June 1998 the RO denied the veteran's claim to an
increased rating for his knee disabilities. The veteran
appealed that decision to the Board. In June 1999 the RO
granted an increased evaluation for the veteran's knee
disabilities to 20 percent effective March 9, 1998. The
veteran continued his appeal and in May 2000 the Board
granted a separate 10 percent rating for right knee
degenerative arthritis and a separate 10 percent rating for
left knee degenerative arthritis.
Knee disabilities are generally evaluated under 38 C.F.R.
§4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5256-5263. When a knee disability
is rated under one of these diagnostic codes, a separate
compensable evaluation may be available under some limited
circumstances, under Diagnostic Codes 5003 or 5010, if there
is medical evidence of arthritis. In this case, multiple
ratings have been assigned for each knee.
The veteran's knee disabilities have been evaluated pursuant
to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5010 and 5257.
Traumatic arthritis is rated as degenerative arthritis under
the rating schedule. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code
5010. Under Diagnostic Code 5003, degenerative arthritis
(hypertrophic or osteoarthritis), established by x-ray
findings, is rated on the basis of the limitation of motion
under the appropriate diagnostic code for the specific joint
or joints involved. When, however, the limitation of motion
of the specific joint or joints involved is noncompensable
under the appropriate diagnostic codes, a rating of 10
percent is for application for each such major joint or group
of minor joints affected by limitation of motion, to be
combined, not added under Diagnostic Code 5003. Limitation
of motion must be objectively confirmed by findings such as
swelling, muscle spasm, or satisfactory evidence of painful
motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5003. The ratings
based on x-ray findings, above, may not be combined with
ratings based on limitation of motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a,
Diagnostic Code 5003, Note (1). For purposes of rating
arthritis, the knee is a major joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45(f).
X-rays taken in February 1999 indicate severe degenerative
changes bilaterally, right greater than left. X-rays taken
in October 2000 indicate degenerative changes of both knees,
marked on the right and moderate on the left, with medial
joint space narrowing bilaterally and with partial narrowing
of the patellofemoral joint space on the right. There was
prominent posterior marginal patellar osteophyte formation
and ossific densities consistent with osteocartilaginous
joint bodies within the suprapatellar bursa and posterior
joint recess of the right knee.
Looking to the diagnostic criteria for limitation of motion
of the knees, the Board first notes that normal flexion is to
140 degrees and normal extension is to 0 degrees. 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.71, Plate II.
Under Diagnostic Code 5260, a zero percent rating is assigned
when flexion of the leg is limited to 60 degrees; a 10
percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 45
degrees. A 20 percent rating may be assigned when flexion is
limited to 30 degrees. A 30 percent rating requires that
flexion be limited to 15 degrees.
Under Diagnostic Code 5261, a zero percent rating is assigned
when extension of the leg is limited to 5 degrees. A 10
percent rating is warranted when extension is limited to 10
degrees. A 20 percent rating is for application when
extension is limited to 15 degrees. A 30 percent rating is
warranted when extension is limited to 20 degrees. A 40
percent rating requires that extension be limited to 30
degrees. A 50 percent rating may be granted for extension of
the leg that is limited to 45 degrees.
Under Diagnostic Code 5257, slight recurrent subluxation or
lateral instability is rated at 10 percent. Moderate
recurrent subluxation or lateral instability is rated at 20
percent, and a finding of severe recurrent subluxation or
lateral instability is necessary for an award of 30 percent.
The "amputation rule" provides that the combined rating for
disabilities of an extremity shall not exceed the rating for
the amputation at that elective level, were amputation to be
performed. For example, the combined evaluations for
disabilities affecting the lower extremity at and below the
knee shall not exceed the 60 percent evaluation under 38
C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5164. 38 C.F.R. § 4.68.
With respect to whether a rating in excess of 10 percent is
warranted on the basis of limitation of motion, the Board
notes that the most recent medical evidence reveals extension
of both knees limited to 20 degrees warranting a rating of 30
percent under Diagnostic Code 5261 for each knee.
At the June 2003 VA examination, the veteran reported pain
"all the time" in both knees. The examiner noted that the
veteran could "extend both knees to only 20 degrees of
bilateral knee flexion," could flex the right knee from 20
to 80 degrees and the left knee from 20 degrees to 115
degrees. The examiner noted that he was unable to passively
flex the right knee past the 80-degree position or the left
knee past the 115-degree position due to pain. After
fatiguing the knees, the veteran could still flex his right
knee from 20 to 80 degrees and his left knee from 20 to 115
degrees. The strength in muscle bundles 10 through 15 using
the MRC scale was 4/5. The examiner's language describing
extension is interpreted favorably for the veteran.
With respect to whether a rating in excess of 20 percent is
warranted under Diagnostic code 5257, the Board notes that
the most recent medical evidence fails to reveal notations of
any objective evidence of severe right or left knee
subluxation or instability.
At the June 2003 VA examination, the veteran reported that he
does not use a brace, a cane, a wheelchair nor does he use a
walker or crutches. He also reported that both knees give
out, the right knee more than the left and the right leg
tends to lock. The veteran also reported having difficulty
ascending and descending stairs. The examiner noted that the
veteran walked with a rolling gate and that he had an obvious
significant genu varus. The veteran was able to stand on his
heels and toes with difficulty and squat to 70 degrees of
bilateral knee flexion. There was pain to palpation in both
knees and crepitation to movement in both knees. McMurry
sign was negative but there was pain in attempt to elicit it.
Anterior drawer sign, posterior drawer sign, and varus and
valgus stress tests were negative. The diagnosis was
traumatic injury to the right knee with osteochondritis
dissecans and internal derangement, operated, with
instability and subsequent severe degenerative disease with
residual; traumatic injury to the left knee with subsequent
instability and severe degenerative changes with residual.
Thus, based on the competent medical evidence of record, the
veteran is not shown to have demonstrated severe subluxation
or instability warranting a higher rating assignment; nor
does the medical evidence reflect that the veteran's overall
right or left knee symptomatology more nearly approximate a
severe level of disability so as to warrant assignment of a
higher rating under Diagnostic Code 5257. Accordingly, the
preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a
rating in excess of 20 percent for recurrent instability of
the right or left knees.
As for other Diagnostic Codes, the Board notes that ankylosis
of the knee, nonunion of the tibia or fibula, and damage or
dislocation to the cartilage or effusion into the joint have
not been shown. Diagnostic Codes 5256, 5259, 5262. As such,
the Board can find no Diagnostic Code under which to grant a
rating in excess of the currently assigned ratings.
The Board recognizes that the veteran experiences episodes of
his knees giving way and daily problems due to pain and
motion limitation. Such factors are, however, contemplated
by the assigned schedular ratings. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45,
4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). In reaching
this decision, the Board has considered the complete history
of the veteran's bilateral knee disabilities, as well as the
current clinical manifestations of his disabilities and their
effect on his earning capacity. Should the veteran's
disability increase in severity, he may be entitled to a
higher evaluation; however, at present, there is no basis for
an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for internal
derangement of the right knee or recurrent subluxation or
instability of the left knee. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. As for
the veteran being a candidate for knee replacement, this
fact, in and of itself, is not a manifestation of severe
disability. The evidence when considered in its totality
does not present a picture of impairment for a 30 percent
rating as contemplated by the rating criteria. Consequently,
the Board finds an increase in excess of 20 percent for
internal derangement of the right knee or recurrent
subluxation or instability of the left knee is not warranted.
Consideration has also been given to the potential
application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3
and 4 (2003), whether or not they were raised by the veteran;
however, the Board finds no basis upon which to assign a
higher disability evaluation. The veteran's operative scar
is repeatedly described as well healed, without note of any
separately disabling manifestations, and the noted right knee
manifestations of pain, swelling, motion limitation, weakness
and instability are contemplated by the assigned ratings.
Finally, the Board finds that, in this case, the disability
picture is not so exceptional or unusual as to warrant an
evaluation on an extraschedular basis. For example, it has
not been shown that the veteran's knee disabilities have
resulted in frequent hospitalizations or caused a marked
interference in the veteran's employment as a bus driver.
The Board is, therefore, not required to refer this matter to
the RO for the procedural actions outlined in 38 C.F.R. §
3.321(b)(1).
ORDER
1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for internal
derangement of the right knee, currently evaluated at 20
percent, is denied.
2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation of 30 percent for
degenerative changes of the right knee is granted, subject to
the law and regulations governing the payment of monetary
benefits.
3. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for recurrent
subluxation or instability of the left knee, currently
evaluated at 20 percent, is denied.
4. Entitlement to an increased evaluation of 30 percent for
degenerative changes of the left knee, is granted, subject to
the law and regulations governing the payment of monetary
benefits.
______________________________________________
John E. Ormond, Jr.
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs
YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION
The attached decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) is
the final decision for all issues addressed in the "Order" section of the
decision. The Board may also choose to remand an issue or issues to the
local VA office for additional development. If the Board did this in your
case, then a "Remand" section follows the "Order." However, you cannot
appeal an issue remanded to the local VA office because a remand is not a
final decision. The advice below on how to appeal a claim applies only to
issues that were allowed, denied, or dismissed in the "Order."
If you are satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you do not need to do
anything. We will return your file to your local VA office to implement
the BVA's decision. However, if you are not satisfied with the Board's
decision on any or all of the issues allowed, denied, or dismissed, you
have the following options, which are listed in no particular order of
importance:
? Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(Court)
? File with the Board a motion for reconsideration of this decision
? File with the Board a motion to vacate this decision
? File with the Board a motion for revision of this decision based on
clear and unmistakable error.
Although it would not affect this BVA decision, you may choose to also:
? Reopen your claim at the local VA office by submitting new and
material evidence.
There is no time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion to
vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error with
the Board, or a claim to reopen at the local VA office. None of these
things is mutually exclusive - you can do all five things at the same time
if you wish. However, if you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court and a
motion with the Board at the same time, this may delay your case because of
jurisdictional conflicts. If you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court
before you file a motion with the BVA, the BVA will not be able to consider
your motion without the Court's permission.
How long do I have to start my appeal to the Court? You have 120 days from
the date this decision was mailed to you (as shown on the first page of
this decision) to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. If you also want to file a motion for
reconsideration or a motion to vacate, you will still have time to appeal
to the Court. As long as you file your motion(s) with the Board within 120
days of the date this decision was mailed to you, you will then have
another 120 days from the date the BVA decides the motion for
reconsideration or the motion to vacate to appeal to the Court. You should
know that even if you have a representative, as discussed below, it is your
responsibility to make sure that your appeal to Court is filed on time.
How do I appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims?
Send your Notice of Appeal to the Court at:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004-2950
You can get information about the Notice of Appeal, the procedure for
filing a Notice of Appeal, the filing fee (or a motion to waive the filing
fee if payment would cause financial hardship), and other matters covered
by the Court's rules directly from the Court. You can also get this
information from the Court's web site on the Internet at
www.vetapp.uscourts.gov, and you can download forms directly from that
website. The Court's facsimile number is (202) 501-5848.
To ensure full protection of your right of appeal to the Court, you must
file your Notice of Appeal with the Court, not with the Board, or any other
VA office.
How do I file a motion for reconsideration? You can file a motion asking
the BVA to reconsider any part of this decision by writing a letter to the
BVA stating why you believe that the BVA committed an obvious error of fact
or law in this decision, or stating that new and material military service
records have been discovered that apply to your appeal. If the BVA has
decided more than one issue, be sure to tell us which issue(s) you want
reconsidered. Send your letter to:
Director, Management and Administration (014)
Board of Veterans' Appeals
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
VA
FORM
JUN
2003
(RS)
4597
Page
1
CONTINUED
Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion for
reconsideration, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan
to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120
days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to vacate? You can file a motion asking the BVA to
vacate any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why
you believe you were denied due process of law during your appeal. For
example, you were denied your right to representation through action or
inaction by VA personnel, you were not provided a Statement of the Case or
Supplemental Statement of the Case, or you did not get a personal hearing
that you requested. You can also file a motion to vacate any part of this
decision on the basis that the Board allowed benefits based on false or
fraudulent evidence. Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. Remember, the Board
places no time limit on filing a motion to vacate, and you can do this at
any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court,
you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to revise the Board's decision on the basis of clear
and unmistakable error? You can file a motion asking that the Board revise
this decision if you believe that the decision is based on "clear and
unmistakable error" (CUE). Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. You should be
careful when preparing such a motion because it must meet specific
requirements, and the Board will not review a final decision on this basis
more than once. You should carefully review the Board's Rules of Practice
on CUE, 38 C.F.R. 20.1400 -- 20.1411, and seek help from a qualified
representative before filing such a motion. See discussion on
representation below. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a
CUE review motion, and you can do this at any time.
How do I reopen my claim? You can ask your local VA office to reopen your
claim by simply sending them a statement indicating that you want to reopen
your claim. However, to be successful in reopening your claim, you must
submit new and material evidence to that office. See 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a).
Can someone represent me in my appeal? Yes. You can always represent
yourself in any claim before VA, including the BVA, but you can also
appoint someone to represent you. An accredited representative of a
recognized service organization may represent you free of charge. VA
approves these organizations to help veterans, service members, and
dependents prepare their claims and present them to VA. An accredited
representative works for the service organization and knows how to prepare
and present claims. You can find a listing of these organizations on the
Internet at: www.va.gov/vso. You can also choose to be represented by a
private attorney or by an "agent." (An agent is a person who is not a
lawyer, but is specially accredited by VA.)
If you want someone to represent you before the Court, rather than before
VA, then you can get information on how to do so by writing directly to the
Court. Upon request, the Court will provide you with a state-by-state
listing of persons admitted to practice before the Court who have indicated
their availability to represent appellants. This information is also
provided on the Court's website at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov.
Do I have to pay an attorney or agent to represent me? Except for a claim
involving a home or small business VA loan under Chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, attorneys or agents cannot charge you a fee or accept
payment for services they provide before the date BVA makes a final
decision on your appeal. If you hire an attorney or accredited agent within
1 year of a final BVA decision, then the attorney or agent is allowed to
charge you a fee for representing you before VA in most situations. An
attorney can also charge you for representing you before the Court. VA
cannot pay fees of attorneys or agents.
Fee for VA home and small business loan cases: An attorney or agent may
charge you a reasonable fee for services involving a VA home loan or small
business loan. For more information, read section 5904, title 38, United
States Code.
In all cases, a copy of any fee agreement between you and an attorney or
accredited agent must be sent to:
Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman (012)
Board of Veterans' Appeals
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
The Board may decide, on its own, to review a fee agreement for
reasonableness, or you or your attorney or agent can file a motion asking
the Board to do so. Send such a motion to the address above for the Office
of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman at the Board.
VA
FORM
JUN
2003
(RS)
4597
Page
2